Accept & Do Not Send a Response

[Julia Foran]

Hi Calendar Community,

We'd like your feedback & reactions to a change we're considering:

Current experience:

When attendees receive a meeting invite, they are provided with 3 response options:

The first two options (Edit the response before sending & Send the response now) both send an email to the organizer, and the attendee's response is recorded in the organizer's tracking list.

The third option (Do not send a response) does not notify organizer, so the attendee's response remains as "None" in the organizer's tracking list.

What we'd like to change:

Many users report that they expect Do not send a response to be recorded in the organizer's tracking list, but just not to send an email. We are considering updating the behavior so that all 3 response options are recorded in the organizer's tracking list. Attendees can still use the Do not send a response option to avoid sending email to the organizer, but their response would now be recorded & shared with organizer.

Questions to the Community:

1. Do you like this change? Does this match what you & others are expecting?
2. What about when an organizer does not request responses (so there is just a simple Accept button without additional options)? Do you think the intention is to avoid email responses? In other words, would you expect this same behavior (responses are always recorded) to apply even when organizer does not request responses? 

[#2]

@satnam99 Hello Satnam99, No. it is a dead end. It was probably always a dead end, with MS support just paying us lip service. I believe they changed it on the web platform but not on the oh-so much more widely used desktop app. That suggests it was too difficult a fix for them. I thought it might be amended in Windows 11 or whatever they put out next but I forget how many years ago I requested this change and If anyone else is reading this... we'll just have to check out the next version and hope they have seen sense. 

[#3]

Oh that's a shame. Thank you for the update :)

[#4]

Yep agreed and they don't even give you lip service, they just ignore the issue and hope people will stop complaining about it BUT it is affecting everyone using the desktop app. I feel like it is in the too hard basket as it's a design flaw and they don't know how to fix it.

[#5]

This is really sad that Microsoft does not have a solution to this ongoing issue and they don't reply to any posts/blogs. It is actually a joke and just goes to show that Microsoft has no idea how to keep customers happy.

[#6]

Yes, I think Microsoft have moved on...I doubt this thread is being monitored now...@ssb_forever 

[#7]

@GeoffLCS yep it's definitely not being monitored and they don't care about existing customers. They must be focussing on more agile products. I personally don't like Outlook but Australia is always years behind the rest of the world and large businesses are still using it.

[#8]

Still no reply from Microsoft or an "expert" so sad :(

[#9]

@Julia Foran 

Agree! I have always assumed that the response is RECORDED just NOT SENT. This seems intuitive to me. I am in agreement with the changes you are looking to make. We urge all employees to use their microsoft calendaring features. Often times, meetings are canceled and rescheduled if required participants do not respond. It's actually a bit disturbing to think this is likely the reason why we see so many "none" in the tracking. 

If the meeting is accepted, it should always read "accepted" in the tracking. 

[#10]

Such an intuitive and helpful change, yet 4 years have now gone by.  I am losing hope that MS will ever do anything about this.  I have had to educate the people I work with to  "send a response" when the invitee list is not too lengthy @HeatherDCS 

[#11]

@Outlook1958 

Yes, it seems to have gone off the radar for good sadly. Only yesterday I worked with another group who had no idea about this. Shared this with them of course - https://www.lingfordconsulting.com.au/ms-outlook/accepting-outlook-meeting-correctly 

[#12]

So, after som testing we see that this "feature" only exits on the windows desktop outlook client. All other clients works as expected. On the outlook client for MacOS you can choose to accept without sending a response, and it shows that you have acceptet in tracker. Same for the iPhone Outlook app and also when you are using outlook web app, it shows to have acceptet even if you don´t sent a response.

[#13]

@Julia Foran I love this idea and the proposed solution.  I think this is what many people intend the functionality to work.  They want to see the tracking, but just not get the emails associated with it.  

[#14]

The expectation is that this option does not "send" an email response. If it's supposed to hide the response for some reason (to which I see no point at all), it should've said do not "show" the response. This option should be removed until it is fixed as it's causing huge problems with event planning.
So yes, do not send a response should prevent triggering an email but absolutely display the response in the tracking list.

[#15]

FYI, as others have pointed out, certain client applications are starting to "work as expected" in that the option to Do Not Send a Response is not sending an email, but is updating the Tracking status. @erikj_UA is reporting success on iOS, Android, and with the Outlook Web app.

I'm also seeing this "working" in the "New Outlook" desktop app (which is just the web app packaged for Windows desktop - though there are currently loads of other issues there). In fact, it looks like Microsoft have changed the response options, to Yes, I'll attend, I might attend, and No, I won't attend, each with an checkbox option for "Email organizer" (vs. the more confusing "Response" verbiage. Unfortunately, it seems like Teams doesn't have an option for sending a response / email, and always seems to email the organizer.

In summary, it seems like progress is being made across a large issue, spanning multiple applications, and the terminology is being made more clear in how each of the options will behave.

[#16]

@swadegeiger well, hello. this is all very odd. I tracked back to the first entry in this conversation, and I have NEVER seen Julia Foran's 'initial' request for feedback on this. I think I posted a query back in 2016 and about twice a year someone pops up with a response and is just discovering that the Meeting Invite Response system (as it was) didnt/doesnt really work. And I know, I, and other regular contributors over the years, never heard from Julia ever again. I only hope nothing untoward happened to her!

 @swadegeiger I am yet to experience of what you write but it sounds positive. Of course, it should always have been a fix in 10 or 11 anyway but I am still on 10. Thank you, and everyone, for looking out for this. Let's put it to bed. Either MS will see sense and fix it properly in the way that the people who actually use the software will benefit or, well, we've managed to get this far, now we know! 

Be well, take care. Lx

[#17]

@Julia Foran Please can you let me know if this improvement to response tracking is available in Outlook destop versions yet? 

[#18]

I would love this, but apparently it has been abandoned, according to this thread. I hate that this techcommunity has replaced UserVoice. Now we just yell into the void.

[#19]

Also, Outlook tracking only lists some recipients who have not responded as "None" (at least when sending to a distribution list). Can anyone explain Outlook's rules for which recipient will be shown in tracking as "None" when no response has been received? Could it be that only the recipients who opened the meeting invitation on their phone or the web but took no action therefore some data is sent back to the organizer's Outlook client so the tracking will list only that recipient as "None"?

[#20]

1. Yes.
2. There may be times when we also are updating from Accept, to Decline, or Vice Versa and don't want to be sending multiple emails, but still would like for the status to still reflect in the organizer's log. It reduces all of the emails going back and forth, yet keeps everything up to date.

[#21]

More than 5 years on and it is still not fixed??? Can someone please give us an update!!!!!